5 ms·

Armenia invaded the said land for some time. You may be unaware but West (NATO) has been on Azerbaijan's side on the disputed land, at least officially on paper

Armenia invaded the said land for some time. You may be unaware but West (NATO) has been on Azerbaijan's side on the disputed land, at least officially on paper.

mschuster91 5y ago
> You may be unaware but West (NATO) has been on Azerbaijan's side on the disputed land, at least officially on paper. In Germany, that may have been motivated by corruption - there has been a huge scandal involving a bunch of Conservative politicians [1]. [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aserbaidschan-Aff%C3%A4re https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aserbaidschan-Aff%C3%A4re
- georgeecollins 5y ago
  The point is that the land that was fought over was part of Azerbaijan that Armenia took in a war after the fall of the Soviet Union. You can say that the border should have been something else, but that's the same argument to made for Crimea. I don't think the rest of NATO took Azerbaijani's side because of corruption, you are just cherry picking an incident in Germany and ignoring the fact that the occupation was not supported. It's very sad and I agree that the second war was also terrible, unjustified and the whole thing would best be solved by negotiations.
  - bonzini 5y ago
    It's a bit more complicated than that. Azerbaijan expelled or downright massacred the Armenian population living in Baku in the 1988 and 1990 pogroms. Nagorno-Karabakh population also used to be a large majority of Armenians until the government promoted relocation of Azeri people in the region, causing the Armenian population to be heavily discriminated.
    - jmstfv 5y ago
      > Azerbaijan expelled the Armenian population from Baku in the 90s pogroms Armenians started assaulting and expelling Azerbaijanis back in 1987 (Kapan/Kafan). This happened before Sumgait/Baku pogroms.
      - bonzini 5y ago
        True. Though the number was at least an order of magnitude smaller than Sumgait/Baku.
      - nonesuchluck 5y ago
        This mini-thread accidentally explains why the West don't, won't, and can't care about Azerbaijan/Armenia violence: it's fucking incomprehensible. Tribes killing each other for generations, for complicated reasons that no one without a relevant PhD will understand. It seems intractable, so we throw up our hands and focus elsewhere, somewhere with a simpler narrative. Everyone gets uptight about the word "uncivilized," but this kind of generational tribal conflict _is_ a failure of civilization. I don't know what causes civilization (it sure ain't skin tone), but without clear villain/victim narratives, and heroes to root for (brave Ukrainians fighting for their own liberation), no one will care. And that's tragic, too, but it's not a commentary on the underlying tragedy of human suffering and death, that people in every nation hurt the same.
        tumanian 5y ago
        You defer to the tv ratings and PR campaigns to define ‘civilization’.
        JAlexoid 5y ago
        Modern definition - if you're driven by emotions, over principles and self reflection. And yes - Armenians are failing to be in any way rational about the long standing conflict.
  - impossiblefork 5y ago
    That is not actually correct. The land in question consists of two parts. The former Nagorno-Karabach Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) and a region which is de jure part of Azerbaijan, which was captured in a war that resulted from Azerbaijan's invasion of the NKAO. The NKAO is not a de jure part of Azerbaijan, as can be seen from the Soviet secession law of 1991, which is the law which permitted Azerbaijan's secession from the Soviet Union. The law itself can be found in English translation on http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/ http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shev... , but basically, autonomous oblasts vote separately from Soviet Republics, and do not automatically secede with their republics unless they hold a separate vote to do so. When Azerbaijan seceded from the Soviet Union no such vote was held in Nagorno-Karabach. In my view the correct legal interpretation is thus that they remained part of Soviet Union until it was dissolved, at which point they became an independent state. This is very important, because Azerbaijan has been shooting people in the NKAO for no reason whatsoever, and I assume that's it's purely a matter of killing Armenians, so it can't be part of Azerbaijan: this makes the legal situation very convenient-- countries like Spain, which does not want to accept a separate Catalonia, or Basque country would not make themselves into hypocrites, or set a precedent against themselves, by recognizing the NKAO, or Artsakh as it now calls itself.
stickfigure 5y ago
To be brutally honest, I don't think the West has given it much thought. It's one of those places that maybe 2% of Americans could find on a map, and even fewer could spell correctly. Turkey obviously has a strong opinion, but they're sort of the odd duck in NATO.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  2% is an extremely generous estimate.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  There's an enormous difference between what a US voter can find on a map / wants to invade (almost nowhere, absolutely nowhere) and where the State Department can find on a map / wants to invade (absolutely anywhere, almost anywhere).
bpodgursky 5y ago
There are a lot of regions in the world with disputed land and unless there are truly horrible acute humanitarian reasons to intervene, an invasion and a new never reduces the overall suffering. There are better ways to solve problems.
jdrc 5y ago
A long story but to cut it short, the UN recommendations for the final solution of NK status is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Principles which proscribe a solution not much different from the current status. this war could have been avoided if both parties had been willing.
- _hcuq 5y ago
  That is a good post. Likewise the situation in Ukraine could have been avoided. Compromise was needed. Both parties weren’t willing. Now both are suffering.
  - DrSiemer 5y ago
    What kind of compromise could Ukraine have made? Installing a Russian puppet regime amounts to giving up in a different way.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    It has become pretty obvious that there wasn't any realistic "compromise" (other than complete submission) that Ukraine could offer. Putin wants Ukraine and is determined to get it by any means. The suffering is 100% on his head.
  - smsm42 5y ago
    Stop with this "both sides" bullshit. Putin decided to invade, and short of completely surrendering in advance, there was absolutely nothing Ukraine could do. All the plans were drafted, the propaganda filmed and the orders shipped way before the "talks" even started, all of it were just for show to form a propaganda context and fool people like you. There's only one side's decision that made the war happen, and that side is Russia.
  - JAlexoid 5y ago
    > Likewise the situation in Ukraine could have been avoided. Sorry, but no. The demands and even the Minsk agreements were completely incompatible with Ukrainian sovereignty. It would have been easier to demand Ukraine recognize LDNR and Crimea, than to implement Misk 2 in its form. I can easily lay blame on Germany for being so nindmumbigly stupid with forcing Minsk 2 on Ukraine. You've seen how well Russia played Merkel, when Ukranian president snapped a pencil. And finally - there was no goal of letting Ukraine make its own decisions on Russian side. This war was inevitable, since western powers refused to provide proper defensive capabilities to Ukraine - specially AA.

Armenia invaded the said land for some time. You may be unaware but West (NATO) has been on Azerbaijan's side on the disputed land, at least officially on paper.

mschuster91 5y ago

> You may be unaware but West (NATO) has been on Azerbaijan's side on the disputed land, at least officially on paper. In Germany, that may have been motivated by corruption - there has been a huge scandal involving a bunch of Conservative politicians [1]. [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aserbaidschan-Aff%C3%A4re https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aserbaidschan-Aff%C3%A4re

georgeecollins 5y ago
The point is that the land that was fought over was part of Azerbaijan that Armenia took in a war after the fall of the Soviet Union. You can say that the border should have been something else, but that's the same argument to made for Crimea. I don't think the rest of NATO took Azerbaijani's side because of corruption, you are just cherry picking an incident in Germany and ignoring the fact that the occupation was not supported. It's very sad and I agree that the second war was also terrible, unjustified and the whole thing would best be solved by negotiations.
- bonzini 5y ago
  It's a bit more complicated than that. Azerbaijan expelled or downright massacred the Armenian population living in Baku in the 1988 and 1990 pogroms. Nagorno-Karabakh population also used to be a large majority of Armenians until the government promoted relocation of Azeri people in the region, causing the Armenian population to be heavily discriminated.
  - jmstfv 5y ago
    > Azerbaijan expelled the Armenian population from Baku in the 90s pogroms Armenians started assaulting and expelling Azerbaijanis back in 1987 (Kapan/Kafan). This happened before Sumgait/Baku pogroms.
    - bonzini 5y ago
      True. Though the number was at least an order of magnitude smaller than Sumgait/Baku.
    - nonesuchluck 5y ago
      This mini-thread accidentally explains why the West don't, won't, and can't care about Azerbaijan/Armenia violence: it's fucking incomprehensible. Tribes killing each other for generations, for complicated reasons that no one without a relevant PhD will understand. It seems intractable, so we throw up our hands and focus elsewhere, somewhere with a simpler narrative. Everyone gets uptight about the word "uncivilized," but this kind of generational tribal conflict _is_ a failure of civilization. I don't know what causes civilization (it sure ain't skin tone), but without clear villain/victim narratives, and heroes to root for (brave Ukrainians fighting for their own liberation), no one will care. And that's tragic, too, but it's not a commentary on the underlying tragedy of human suffering and death, that people in every nation hurt the same.
      - tumanian 5y ago
        You defer to the tv ratings and PR campaigns to define ‘civilization’.
        JAlexoid 5y ago
        Modern definition - if you're driven by emotions, over principles and self reflection. And yes - Armenians are failing to be in any way rational about the long standing conflict.
- impossiblefork 5y ago
  That is not actually correct. The land in question consists of two parts. The former Nagorno-Karabach Autonomous Oblast (NKAO) and a region which is de jure part of Azerbaijan, which was captured in a war that resulted from Azerbaijan's invasion of the NKAO. The NKAO is not a de jure part of Azerbaijan, as can be seen from the Soviet secession law of 1991, which is the law which permitted Azerbaijan's secession from the Soviet Union. The law itself can be found in English translation on http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/ http://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shev... , but basically, autonomous oblasts vote separately from Soviet Republics, and do not automatically secede with their republics unless they hold a separate vote to do so. When Azerbaijan seceded from the Soviet Union no such vote was held in Nagorno-Karabach. In my view the correct legal interpretation is thus that they remained part of Soviet Union until it was dissolved, at which point they became an independent state. This is very important, because Azerbaijan has been shooting people in the NKAO for no reason whatsoever, and I assume that's it's purely a matter of killing Armenians, so it can't be part of Azerbaijan: this makes the legal situation very convenient-- countries like Spain, which does not want to accept a separate Catalonia, or Basque country would not make themselves into hypocrites, or set a precedent against themselves, by recognizing the NKAO, or Artsakh as it now calls itself.

stickfigure 5y ago

To be brutally honest, I don't think the West has given it much thought. It's one of those places that maybe 2% of Americans could find on a map, and even fewer could spell correctly. Turkey obviously has a strong opinion, but they're sort of the odd duck in NATO.

sokoloff 5y ago
2% is an extremely generous estimate.
whatshisface 5y ago
There's an enormous difference between what a US voter can find on a map / wants to invade (almost nowhere, absolutely nowhere) and where the State Department can find on a map / wants to invade (absolutely anywhere, almost anywhere).

bpodgursky 5y ago

There are a lot of regions in the world with disputed land and unless there are truly horrible acute humanitarian reasons to intervene, an invasion and a new never reduces the overall suffering. There are better ways to solve problems.

jdrc 5y ago

A long story but to cut it short, the UN recommendations for the final solution of NK status is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Principles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Principles which proscribe a solution not much different from the current status. this war could have been avoided if both parties had been willing.

_hcuq 5y ago
That is a good post. Likewise the situation in Ukraine could have been avoided. Compromise was needed. Both parties weren’t willing. Now both are suffering.
- DrSiemer 5y ago
  What kind of compromise could Ukraine have made? Installing a Russian puppet regime amounts to giving up in a different way.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  It has become pretty obvious that there wasn't any realistic "compromise" (other than complete submission) that Ukraine could offer. Putin wants Ukraine and is determined to get it by any means. The suffering is 100% on his head.
- smsm42 5y ago
  Stop with this "both sides" bullshit. Putin decided to invade, and short of completely surrendering in advance, there was absolutely nothing Ukraine could do. All the plans were drafted, the propaganda filmed and the orders shipped way before the "talks" even started, all of it were just for show to form a propaganda context and fool people like you. There's only one side's decision that made the war happen, and that side is Russia.
- JAlexoid 5y ago
  > Likewise the situation in Ukraine could have been avoided. Sorry, but no. The demands and even the Minsk agreements were completely incompatible with Ukrainian sovereignty. It would have been easier to demand Ukraine recognize LDNR and Crimea, than to implement Misk 2 in its form. I can easily lay blame on Germany for being so nindmumbigly stupid with forcing Minsk 2 on Ukraine. You've seen how well Russia played Merkel, when Ukranian president snapped a pencil. And finally - there was no goal of letting Ukraine make its own decisions on Russian side. This war was inevitable, since western powers refused to provide proper defensive capabilities to Ukraine - specially AA.